Co-text and receptive multilingualism ‒ Finnish students comprehending Estonian

This paper will offer some examples to explain the understanding of closely related languages. The traditional contrastive research in studying Estonian and Finnish has above all been based on similarities which have been studied on the level of, e.g., morphemes. However, resemblance is actually more holistic in nature. A rather new perspective on the intelligibility of closely related languages is that of receptive multilingualism . It refers to such communication where speakers use their L1s and understand the L1s of others. Common elements are often recognized in texts as well: cognates facilitate reading comprehension. The results of various translation tests show that the perceived similarity leads to different comprehension results in single items and in texts. Semantic relationships in phraseological units should also be considered and possibilities of improving mutual intelligibility by utilising semantic regularities will be discussed. Kokkuvote. Pirkko Muikku-Werner: Ko-tekst ja retseptiivne mitmekeelsus – kuidas soome uliopilased moistavad eesti keelt. Tanapaevaseid keeleoskusnoudeid arvestades on moistlik soodustada lahedaste sugulaskeelte, nagu eesti ja soome keele oppimist. Artikkel esitab naiteid, mis selgitavad arusaamist lahedaste sugulaskeelte vahel. Retseptiivse mitmekeelsuse uuringud sugulaskeele arusaadavusest emakeele baasil lahenevad moistmisele usnagi uuest vaatepunktist. Retseptiivne mitmekeelsus tahendab suhtlust, kus konelejad kasutavad oma emakeelt ja saavad aru oma kaasvestlejate emakeelest. Selle tahtsaks eelduseks on sarnasuste arakasutamine holistilisematelt ja mitmekulgsematelt seisukohtadelt, kui seda varem on tehtud; naiteks ei liiguta pelgalt morfeemide tasandil, nagu soome ja eesti keele kontrastiivsed uuringud tavaliselt on teinud. Sarnasus on tegelikult palju holistlikum. Naiteks tekstidest ara tuntud sarnased elemendid lihtsustavad loetu moistmist. Soome uliopilaste seas labi viidud testid naitavad, et tunnetatud sarnasus viib uksiksonade ja lausetesse paigutatud sonade tolkimisel erinevate tulemusteni, mis annab tunnis tust ko(n)teksti olulisusest. Tahelepanu tasub poorata ka fraseoloogilise uhendi liikmete vahelistele semantilistele suhetele. Nende vaheliste seadusparasuste vaatlemine voib pakkuda uusi voimalusi lahedase sugulaskeele moistmise lihtsustamiseks. Marksonad : sarnasus, retseptiivne mitmekeelsus, sugulaskeeled, eesti keel, soome keel, arusaadavus, tolketestid

[1]  Murray Singer.  Inference processing in discourse comprehension , 2007 .

[2]  Jarmo Harri Jantunen.  Minulla on aivan paljon rahaa – Fraseologiset yksiköt suomen kielen opetuksessa [’I have really lots of money’ – Phraseological units in the teaching of Finnish] , 2009 .

[3]  J. R. Firth,et al.  A Synopsis of Linguistic Theory, 1930-1955 , 1957 .

[4]  H. Geckeler.  Horst G. Klein/Tilbert D. Stegmann – EuroComRom – Die sieben Siebe: Romanische Sprachen sofort lesen können , 2001 .

[5]  Susan M. Gass,et al.  Second Language Acquisition , 2020 .

[6]  Pirkko Muikku-Werner,et al.  Reseptiivinen monikielisyys: miten suomenkielinen oppija ymmärtää viroa äidinkielensä pohjalta? , 2010 .

[7]  R.A.M.G. van Bezooijen,et al.  Interlingual text comprehension: linguistic and extralinguistic determinants , 2007 .

[8]  Britta Hufeisen,et al.  14. How can DaFnE and EuroComGerm contribute to the concept of receptive multilingualism? Theoretical and practical considerations , 2007 .

[9]  Georges Lüdi,et al.  Receptive multilingualism as a strategy for sharing mutual linguistic resources in the workplace in a Swiss context , 2013 .

[10]  Morfologinen priming ja fraseologia vieraan kielen oppimisessa: korpustutkimus oppijansuomesta , 2012 .

[11]  Michael Pace-Sigge.  The concept of Lexical Priming in the context of language use 1 , 2013 .

[12]  K. Braunmüller.  Communication based on receptive multilingualism: advantages and disadvantages , 2013 .

[13]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Explorations in the functions of language , 1973 .

[14]  J. Rehbein,et al.  Lingua receptiva (LaRa) – remarks on the quintessence of receptive multilingualism , 2012 .

[15]  John Sinclair,et al.  Corpus, Concordance, Collocation , 1991 .

[16]  J. Sinclair.  The Search for Units of Meaning , 1996 .

[17]  E. Keenan.  Dimensions in Sociolinguistics , 1975, Language in Society.

[18]  J. Firth.  Papers in linguistics , 1958 .

[19]  Håkan Ringbom,et al.  Cross-linguistic Similarity in Foreign Language Learning , 2006 .

[20]  Geoff Thompson,et al.  Introducing Functional Grammar , 1996 .

[21]  Charlotte Gooskens.  The Contribution of Linguistic Factors to the Intelligibility of Closely Related Languages , 2007 .

[22]  Nadja Nesselhauf.  THE USE OF COLLOCATIONS BY ADVANCED LEARNERS OF ENGLISH AND SOME IMPLICATIONS FOR TEACHING , 2003 .

[23]  M. Hoey.  Lexical Priming: A New Theory of Words and Language , 2005 .

[24]  A. Verschik.  Practising receptive multilingualism: Estonian–Finnish communication in Tallinn , 2012 .

[25]  T. McNamara.  Semantic Priming: Perspectives from Memory and Word Recognition , 2005 .

[26]  Charlotte Gooskens.  Linguistic and extra-linguistic predictors of Inter-Scandinavian intelligibility , 2006 .

[27]  Michael Halliday,et al.  Cohesion in English , 1976 .

[28]  F. Wijnen,et al.  Combining cognitive and interactive approaches to lingua receptiva , 2013 .

[29]  M. Bhardwaj.  Language as a Social Semiotic or Cultural Tool , 2016 .

[30]  Michael Grüninger,et al.  Introduction , 2002, CACM.